McShay has him in the 20's. Kiper doesn't have a QB in the top 25 big board. Russ Lande NFP has him ranked 40 (behind Glennon and Barkley!). Bill Williamson the ESPN AFC west blogger says he hasn't proven to be a top of the board prospect. Mayock was disappointed that Geno didn't go to Mobile.

I'm not exactly out on a limb here. Can anyone really make the case that Geno Smith is the best player in this draft?

I won't go as far as Russ. Yes he's the best Qb in this class. But this class sucks. Smith's good points don't outweigh his bad points to get him up to 1. I don't see why this is such an unreasonable position.

it's possible that the unreasonable position is just assuming he goes 1, just cause he's a QB and that's what happens.

I think people are assuming that since a lot of QB's got picked high the last few years and because a lot of teams are QB hungry, that a QB/QB's will get picked high in this year's draft, but what if it isn't so? The most respected analyst I've seen, rated Smith in the 14-20 range and Barkley in the 20-25 range. I suspect even if there is some movement up because of the importance of the position, Smith will go no higher than #9-12 and Barkley might see around #17-20. I think that teams who reach beyond these parameters, will pay a price for their wishful thinking.

If you draft him first overall and get the kind of production that Sam Bradford has produced thus far in his career, then I think you have a fairly large bust on your hands. If you're taking a QB in the Top 10 of the draft he should be expected to be a franchise QB. What is a franchise QB? The kind of player that turns your franchise around. The type of player that can beat anyone on any given Sunday regardless of the talent around him, or the talent he is facing... A franchise QB has got to be be the guy that catapults your team to victories you aren't expected to win.

Ok, then no - I still don't think Geno is a "franchise QB" by that definition. I think he could be worked with and that he could help take KC's offense from unwatchable to good enough to make the playoffs, but I feel like if they take him there's going to be this discussion every year about how they "need to get him more weapons," which is what people say when they're making excuses for a guy who's not really (or not yet) a "franchise QB." I'd expect him to come in and force secondaries to back up a little bit while they let Jamaal Charles carry the offense hoping he doesn't get hurt.

Quote:

I think he has the physical tools and the makeup to be a high draft pick. I think he has the most potential of any QB in this class, and he's the most likely candidate to win a starting job from day 1. But if you think you're getting a Sam Bradford, then I don't know how you justify taking him in the Top 10. I don't think teams picking first overall can simply pick an average to below average QB first overall because its your biggest need. Especially when you have the chance to add the best player in the entire draft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by y.f.s.

I don't think they're really comparable at all in terms of skillset.

I think he moves like Sam Bradford and is similar in that he's best when he doesn't have to evade a rush and can sit back and throw. You might say that all QBs are like that, but it's not true; there are a lot of QBs in the league who really shine when plays break down. Don't think that's a strong suit of either Bradford or Geno. But his arm is stronger than Bradford's, which is where Cutler comes in. Cutler can be a little bit of a stare-down artist as well, and they are comparable in that they don't really try to project a pointedly media-friendly persona, and have been known to call out teammates, but they also seem to be liked by their teammates and have command of their respective locker rooms. There are some similarities. It's also questionable whether you'd take a combination of Bradford and Cutler first overall - BigBanger's point. Some people say it's worth it to get a competent starter, others subscribe to philosophies of taking BPA's and always trying to develop young QBs. I'm more towards the latter, but as I get more into the draft I'm finding that I'd still probably rank Geno in the top 32 for sure, and as there isn't a jaw-dropping talent to take instead at the top of the draft, this might be the year the no. 1 overall pick is accompanied with a shrug but little criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

If your team hasn't had a potential franchise QB in nearly 20 years, there's no such thing as overpaying to get one.

This logic is just

Quote:

Geno also had a monster game against the Longhorns.
Yeah Geno and the Mountaineers couldn't get on track against Syracuse, but did you see Geno Smith's Orange Bowl masterpiece against Clemson last season??

Smith has four years worth of tape and IMO his good football far outweighs his rare bad games. He's coachable and has gotten better every year as a starter.

I just don't see a better QB you'd select before him.

At this point the debate is pretty clearly divided between two thought processes - those who think that KC should take a QB first overall no mater what, and those who don't. If you're in the former camp, Geno's as good a no. 1 as anyone. There are just a lot of QBs in this draft and some vets who are going to be available, and while Geno has all the physical ability to turn into a really nice QB, there's more work to do than his stat line would have you believe.

I think he moves like Sam Bradford and is similar in that he's best when he doesn't have to evade a rush and can sit back and throw. You might say that all QBs are like that, but it's not true; there are a lot of QBs in the league who really shine when plays break down. Don't think that's a strong suit of either Bradford or Geno. But his arm is stronger than Bradford's, which is where Cutler comes in. Cutler can be a little bit of a stare-down artist as well, and they are comparable in that they don't really try to project a pointedly media-friendly persona, and have been known to call out teammates, but they also seem to be liked by their teammates and have command of their respective locker rooms. There are some similarities. It's also questionable whether you'd take a combination of Bradford and Cutler first overall - BigBanger's point. Some people say it's worth it to get a competent starter, others subscribe to philosophies of taking BPA's and always trying to develop young QBs.

This is something I've talked to TACKLE about in regards to Houston and the 06 Draft. Everybody said take Reggie or Vince Young. They took the best overall football player/premium talent/valuable position in Mario. He was great, but didn't have a huge impact on wins and losses.

Really though, the right decision would have been to take Cutler. Cutler has his warts, but imagine him in that offense, behind that offensive line, and with Andre Johnson to stare down. Remember, Cutler's best season came in a very similar system in Denver (although Shanny was letting Cutler play way more gun - almost like Stafford with the Lions now). That's a massive upgrade over Schaub and (I think) works out best for them in the long term. Then again, I was a major Cutler fanboy and didn't really care for Bush or Young to begin with (although I defended the Williams pick vehemently).

Quote:

I'm more towards the latter, but as I get more into the draft I'm finding that I'd still probably rank Geno in the top 32 for sure, and as there isn't a jaw-dropping talent to take instead at the top of the draft, this might be the year the no. 1 overall pick is accompanied with a shrug but little criticism.

And here's my main thought on this....once you actually start putting a big board together and look at the top 10, you realize that there is not a whole hell lot of a difference between 1 and 10. The people saying Joeckel is far and away the BAP need to watch his game against Florida and pls ******* go already. Good prospect, solid, but he's arguably not even the best guy at his own position in this draft (or on his own team last year). Jarvis Jones is essentially Bruce Irvin, Damontre Moore is essentially Anthony Spencer, yet people are trying to sell me that that's better than a good-not-great QB prospect. Unless you're planning on going true BAP and taking Star, Chance Warmack or Arthur Brown 1st overall, I'm not sure what else there is to do.

Well if you want to bring Sam Bradford into the conversation, Geno Smith is a better prospect. If Sam went #1 in a pretty strong draft and the Rams were happy enough with him to pass on Griffin, Geno Smith should absolutely be the #1 pick in a weaker draft.

Ponder/Locker/Gabbert were all overdrafted by at least a full round IMO in 2011.

IF Cam Newton wasn't in that draft it's entirely possible one of those three would have gone 1/1.
It's just the nature of the position in the rookie salary cap era.
I agree if KC was forced to guarantee Geno Smith $50-60 mil on his rookie contract, that franchise might look in another direction with the first pick.

But even if Smith busts royally, he won't cost the Chiefs more than $22-23 mil total. That's a bargain for a first pick overall QB selection.

Well if you want to bring Sam Bradford into the conversation, Geno Smith is a better prospect. If Sam went #1 in a pretty strong draft and the Rams were happy enough with him to pass on Griffin, Geno Smith should absolutely be the #1 pick in a weaker draft.

I really am increasingly leaning more towards accepting Geno Smith as a justifiable no. 1 pick, but that's the same as saying I'm realizing that this draft is a very not-top-heavy.

And I see FUNBUNCHER just posted, and that's really the other part of it - the no. 1 overall pick isn't a game of salary cap roulette anymore, and that's obviously a significant risk reduction.

It's nice that people are starting to challenge the Luke Joeckel hype now. I don't really feel like running down the list of OT prospects that went just way higher than they should have because of the hype of being the "best since xx" There's a whole slew of Jason Smith's (never understood this one, tbh) and Robert Gallery's in the last 10 years.

And let me put it this way: (assuming the Rams have an average LT and the Browns have an average QB) would you rather have Joe Thomas or Sam Bradford? Do you think the Rams would accept a trade of Joe Thomas for Sam Bradford? Would the Browns?

The Browns would be all over that trade and the Rams would have hung up the phone.

Ponder/Locker/Gabbert were all overdrafted by at least a full round IMO in 2011.

IF Cam Newton wasn't in that draft it's entirely possible one of those three would have gone 1/1.
It's just the nature of the position in the rookie salary cap era.
I agree if KC was forced to guarantee Geno Smith $50-60 mil on his rookie contract, that franchise might look in another direction with the first pick.

But even if Smith busts royally, he won't cost the Chiefs more than $22-23 mil total. That's a bargain for a first pick overall QB selection.

To swing and miss on a QB isn't as crippling but it's still a ton of change, losses and gets people fired. The fact that "only" 23 mil instead of 50 doesn't save Andy's job.

it's different be the over drafted as the 2nd or 3rd qb off the board than it is to be over drafted at 1.

Yes Andy picked Donovan and built a team around him. the question is will he actually pick Geno?

He might not pick that guy and stake his reputation on him. If Andy passes he slides down the board (because who wants a guy who wasn't good enough for 1).

With most of the scouts presumably having him worth 10-20 slots lower then where they pick, it's a giant reach at 1. KC could trade back in like when the Browns went Joe Thomas and then Brady Quinn and at least get him where he is valued. I have no problem with that move nor do I hate Geno as a prospect. Just saying it's a game of values and Al Davis is dead.

It's nice that people are starting to challenge the Luke Joeckel hype now. I don't really feel like running down the list of OT prospects that went just way higher than they should have because of the hype of being the "best since xx" There's a whole slew of Jason Smith's (never understood this one, tbh) and Robert Gallery's in the last 10 years.

Joekel isn't Jon ogden type of prospect that much is true. He is overrated in that sense.

in general it's a pretty strong OT year and there's good tape on Joeckel against SEC defenses, can't really say that about Smith or Gallery. Plus he goes against Demontre Moore in practice.

I don't understand why people are so down on Geno? His team wasn't that good? Well neither was Jay Cutler. Just because his team was surrounded by garbage doesn't mean anything.

He didn't throw an INT on the road all year long, has pro style experience, threw 4 TD's on a top 10 passing defense, led multiple comebacks against teams only for his kicker/defense blowing it (see TCU game) and his accuracy and touch is really good, especially in the short and intermediate game.

He goes to KC and he has a fantastic staff of Reid and Pederson to help him succeed, along with Charles and Bowe (who I think we will resign).

I don't understand why people are so down on Geno? His team wasn't that good? Well neither was Jay Cutler.

Cutler's a good comparison but remember he went 11 after a great senior bowl. I don't think people are down on Geno, just there are about 20 prospects who grade out higher. when the guy isn't in Kiper's top 25 that's a signal.

Cutler's a good comparison but remember he went 11 after a great senior bowl. I don't think people are down on Geno, just there are about 20 prospects who grade out higher. when the guy isn't in Kiper's top 25 that's a signal.

If a QB can go 11 he can go 1. There is this weird thinking that the first overall pick is somehow different than the second overall pick in terms of value. It's one pick. People need to get out of the mindset that the first pick holds some special meaning or mystique and realize that it isn't as importat as some make it out to be.

As for your second point? Not really. Kiper mocked Te'o to the Chiefs first overall a month ago. An ILB first overall. That isn't a signal to me, his board will change a lot over the next three months and if you think the Chiefs (or any team) has their board 100% set in stone in early February, you're kidding yourself.

You just can't ignore who the new Chiefs HC is, how he runs his offense and what Geno Smith's skillset is.

Smith is an accurate thrower who doesn't make stupid decisions with the football. I don't think there's any QB in this draft who's better than Geno when it comes to these two traits.

I think he struggles on the deep out passes and when under some pressure. I'd also question his demeanor when things aren't going well. I've compared him some to Sam Bradford but all these claims that he excels at everything need to be countered.

I think he struggles on the deep out passes and when under some pressure. I'd also question his demeanor when things aren't going well. I've compared him some to Sam Bradford but all these claims that he excels at everything need to be countered.

One of Geno's greatest weaknesses is that he fails to be effective when his first read his gone and he needs to go through his progressions. Geno had an extremely talented group around him and for him to go through considerable struggles in the second half of the season is concerning for a team making a high investment in him. I am in the group that agrees the Chiefs should go quarterback first overall but Geno is not the guy to pull the trigger on.

I don't understand why people are so down on Geno? His team wasn't that good? Well neither was Jay Cutler. Just because his team was surrounded by garbage doesn't mean anything.

He didn't throw an INT on the road all year long, has pro style experience, threw 4 TD's on a top 10 passing defense, led multiple comebacks against teams only for his kicker/defense blowing it (see TCU game) and his accuracy and touch is really good, especially in the short and intermediate game.

He goes to KC and he has a fantastic staff of Reid and Pederson to help him succeed, along with Charles and Bowe (who I think we will resign).

I think T. Austin and S. Bailey have had a big impact on Geno's stock. As in they've made him look better than he is.

I think he struggles on the deep out passes and when under some pressure. I'd also question his demeanor when things aren't going well. I've compared him some to Sam Bradford but all these claims that he excels at everything need to be countered.

I buy most of the Sam Bradford comparison, as I've posted before. I wasn't a big fan, but it's not like I was saying he'd be completely awful and never be able to play. He's about as good as I thought he would be. He doesn't really hold his team back, but he doesn't put them over the top, either. That's what I see with Geno. Doesn't bother me at all if KC wants to take a mediocre starter first overall and call if "finally trying," as if all they ever needed to do was spend a high draft pick on a QB. I mean, they probably would have won a Super Bowl by now if only they hadn't been so averse to drafting QBs in the first round.

Seeing far too many "narrative knocks" (surrounding talent, system, W-L record, game scores, etc.). Those things that really don't have anything to do with how successful he will be at the next level. People are too often looking for these external indicators that they can look back on later and say "we should have known so-and-so would busted because he played in X system or had great WR's" or "we should have known so would be a legit NFL QB when he threw for 700 yards and 8 TD's in a game". Truth is neither of those things matter moving forward. Isolate the player. Gotta focus on evaluating how well the individual players talent and skills translate to the next level and not get caught up in the stuff that doesn't matter.

I heard Geno Smith's interview from the Super Bowl week on NFL Network. Seemed like a very smart and knowledgeable person.

I've been high on Geno Smith for a while and if he goes to the Chiefs with Andy Reid, the fanbase should be excited.

It's not his smarts so much as his personality and attitude that are a question with him.

Geno's skill set is a very good fit for an NFL offense, especially the WCO. The offense at WVU actually wasn't his best fit, he's just a very adaptable player. His skills and physical attributes make him a much better fit in a pro-style offense.

And, yeah, Tim Couch would have been at least a solid-to-good QB if he'd been in a situation that wasn't completely awful.

You put a competent QB with a competent coaching staff into the situation in KC, where they have 3-4 (maybe even 5) receivers that are at least pretty good, a good OL, a great RB, and a good TE situation and there's low chance for failure.